supranational

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (August 2008)

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (January 2008)

Supranationalism is a method of decision-making in multi-national political communities, wherein power is transferred to an authority broader than governments of member states. Because decisions in some supranational structures are taken by majority votes, it is possible for a member-state in those unions to be forced by the other member-states to implement a decision. Unlike in a federal supra-state, member states retain nominal sovereignty, although some sovereignty is shared with, or ceded to, the supranational body. Full sovereignty can be reclaimed by withdrawing from the supranational arrangements. A supranational authority, by definition, can have some independence from member state governments, although not as much independence as with federal governments. Supranational institutions, like federal governments, imply the possibility of pursuing agendas in ways that the delegating states did not initially envision.

Another method of decision-making in international organizations is intergovernmentalism, in which state governments play a more prominent role.

Supranationalism in the European Union

Historically the concept was introduced and made a concrete reality by Robert Schuman when the French Government accepted his Schuman Plan thus commencing the European Community system beginning with the European Coal and Steel Community. The six founder States, (France, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) agreed on the goal; making 'war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. They agreed about the means: putting the vital interests, namely coal and steel production, under a common High Authority, subject to common institutions. They agreed on the rule of law and a democratic procedure. The five institutions (besides the High Authority) were a Consultative Committee (a chamber representing interests of enterprises, workers and consumers), a parliament, and a council of government ministers. A Court of Justice would decide disputes coming from governments, public or private enterprises, consumer groups, any other group interests or even an individual. A complaint could be lodged in a local tribunal or national courts, where appropriate. Member States have yet to fulfill and develop the articles in the Paris and Rome treaties for full democracy in the European Parliament and other institutions such as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions.

Schuman described supranational unions as a new stage in human development, compared with destructive nationalisms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that ended in wars.^[1] He traces the beginning concept of supranationality back to the nineteenth century, such as the Postal Union, and the term supranational is used around the time of the first world war. Democracy, which he defined as 'in the service of the people and acting in agreement with it,' was a fundamental part of a supranational community, although governments only began to hold direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979. It was specified in the treaty for Europe's first community of coal and steel in 1951.

Supranationalism only exists in the two communities inside the EU, the Economic Community (often called the European Community) and Euratom (the European Atomic Energy Community, a non-proliferation community, which has been blocked in certain features.) The first Community of Coal and Steel was agreed only for fifty years. Its jurisprudence and heritage remains part of the European Community system. The two other pillars of the EU comprising foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs are not subject to the same democratic controls as the Community system.

Comparisons EU and USA

In the upcoming Lisbon Treaty the distribution of competences in various policy areas between Member States and the European union is redistributed in 3 categories. In 19 century USA, it had exclusive competences only(changed somewhat since then, but the basic design remain to this day). Competences not explicitly listed belong to lower levels of governance.

EU exclusive competence The Union has exclusive competence to make directives and conclude international agreements when provided for in a Union legislative act. the customs union the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy common commercial (trade) policy

EU shared competence Member States cannot exercise competence in areas where the Union has done so. the internal market social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy the area of freedom, security and justice common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty Common Foreign and Security Policy

EU supporting competence The Union can carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement Member States' actions. the protection and improvement of human health industry culture tourism education, youth, sport and vocational training civil protection (disaster prevention) administrative cooperation

USA exclusive competence USA federal government in the 19th century.[2] Internal improvements Subsidies (mainly to shipping) Tariffs Disposal of public lands Immigration law Foreign policy Copyrights Patents Currency

Categorising European supranationalism

Joseph H. H. Weiler, in his seminal work "The Dual Character of Supranationalism," states that there are two main facets to European supranationalism, although these seem to be true of many supranational systems. These are:

• Normative supranationalism: The Relationships and hierarchy which exist between Community policies and legal measures on one hand and the competing policies and legal measures of the Member states on the other. (The Executive Dimension)
• Decisional supranationalism: The institutional framework and decision making by which such measures are initiated, debated, formulated, promulgated and, finally, executed. (The Legislative-Judicial Dimension)

In many ways, the split sees the separation of powers confined to merely two branches.

See also

• Supranational union
• Continental union
• Federation
• Devolution
• Multi-level governance

References

1. ^ Schuman, Robert. [Pour l'Europe] Paris, 1963
2. ^ Lowi, T. The End of the Republican Era (ISBN 0-8061-2887-9), University of Oklahoma Press, 1995-2006. p. 6.

External links

• Towards Unity